History HubΒ permalink
Richard II
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
Hi folks,
I just know bits and pieces of the story of Richard II and a little from Shakespeare's play. So what was the story of King Richard II? Who were the Lords Apellant and how were they able to rule for a number of years. Why did Richard co-rule with them and why did he exile Bolingbroke?
Was Henry of Bolingbroke a usurper or was he right in sending Richard II to Potefract Castle? Why to Pontefract Castle? Why not the Tower of London? Finally, how was Richard killed? Was he murdered? Did he die of Starvation? Was Bolingbroke responsible for that?
This is a period I would like to understand better. What kind of King was Richard II?
Tas -
Message 2
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
In Act V, Scene V of Shakespeare's play I remember John Gielgud, as Richard II, saying:
"I wasted time; and now doth time waste me....."
Very poignant! and Sad.
Tas -
Message 3
Posted by Billygoatgruff (U14440809) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
If you wish to see John Gielgud play Bolingbroke, I recommend Falstaff, chimes at midnight. (youtube have some good clips).
A real pearl of a film, good old Orson Welles. -
Message 4
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
Dear Tas
A good topic for discussion. Richard II was the grandson of Edward III and the son of the Black Prince. He became king in 1377, aged 10, and his minority was characterised by an unsuccessful war with France, an unpopular conciliar government and a new tax, the poll tax, which caused the Peasants' Revolt in 1381.
Unlike previous taxes which were based on the worth of a man's moveable goods, and which excluded the poorest, the poll tax was a tax on everyone over 14 who was not a beggar and levied at the same rate whether you were earl or churl.
The Peasants' Revolt shaped Richard's reign subsequent to it. His closest advisers were either killed, fled, or holed up frightened in the Tower. Richard himself quelled the rioters and sent them home, all aged just 14. This seems to have gone to Richard's head and given him delusions of grandeur.
He clashed with his father's generation of lords, especially the earl of Arundel and his own uncle, the duke of Gloucester, as he saw them as preventing him from exercising his right to rule and they were concerned that he was not mature enough to rule in his own right.
The Lords Appellant consisted of five lords, three from the older generation, the duke of Gloucester and the earls of Arundel and Warwick, and two from Richard's own generation, Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray, earl of Nottingham. They grabbed control of the government for a while in 1387-9 until Richard re-established control.
Richard then built up his strength until, in 1397, he felt strong enough to rvenege himself. Gloucester was murdered, Arundel executed and Warwick exiled. The followign year Mowbray and Bolingbroke fell out and challeneged each other to a duel. Richard banished both of them. By this time he was basically acting as a tyrant and no-one felt safe which was why when Bolingbroke invaded, enough people felt able to desert Richard and support Bolingbroke.
Pontefract was Bolingbroke's chief castle and away from London so Richard couldnt be rescued.
All the best
Andrew -
Message 5
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
Hi Andrew,
Such a pleasure to see you back on the board!
Do we know how Richard II died? I understand his body was unearthed and checked to see if he had been beheaded. Later historians said he was starved.
That definitely seems plausible. In Mughal India, whenever there was a family claimant for the throne and he as to be put away, they used to make him drink a drink called "Post". it made the young Prince slowly lose all energy and eventually he died without causing much comment.
When in the late 1650s, Aurangzeb won the fratricidal war and captured his elder brother Dara and his son Sepahir, he had the son produced in court and politely asked him if he had any special wishes. The young prince said, "I would be very grateful if I am not made to drink Post." Aurangzeb agreed there in court but the young Prince died in mysterious circumstances.
I imagine a similar kind of fate met King Richard II, or Richard of Bordeaux as he is also called.
Tas -
Message 6
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
Richard was placed in the Tower initially after his deposition but was moved at the end of 1399 when a group of nobles who had been in Richard's circle (and whom Henry had dispossessed in the same way that Richard had previously dispossessed him) threatened to murder Henry and restore Richard to the throne.
It was previously thought that Richard II had been killed by a blow to the head as Henry VI was to be killed in 1471 but the opening of his tomb in 1871 showed his skull unmarked adding to the theory that he was starved to death:
Richard II like King John, Edward II, Henry VI, Richard III, Charles I and James II fell victim to a mixture of personal flaws, arbitrary rule and too great a reliance on personal favourites. He also made one enemy too many. The stories of all these fallen monarchs illustrate the fact that England was more of an oligarchy than an absolute monarchy in which the sovereign was primus inter pares amongst a powerful nobility who would be prepared to cut down to size any over-mighty ruler.
What is interesting about Richard's overthrow is that Henry felt it necessary to call a special session of Parliament (then with only a century of continuous existence) to legitimise his accession to the throne and declare that Richard had "resigned" the crown. Although this was an obvious rubber-stamp it set an important precedent that was to be repeated in 1483 and 1689.
Henry had effectively given Parliament the power to decide who the legitimate occupant of the English throne should be or, as in 1649, the power to remove the monarchy altogether. -
Message 7
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
Hi Allan,
Do you think it will be possible to open the tomb once more. We could learn a lot from modern forensic techniques, like DNA etc. perhaps we could even know the cause of death, any battles wounds, etc.
Why were the other corpses investigated: Henry VII, Edward II, Elizabeth of York, etc.?
Tas -
Message 8
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 9th April 2011
Hi Billygoatgruff,
I went to you-tube and heard not only Sir John Gielgud in Richard II, but many of my favorite Shakespearean actors, like Laurence Olivier, and saw his funeral. I also saw him in the film Richard III in the battle of Bosworth; how he died in the battle. Delightful!
Tas -
Message 9
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
As an aside, my understanding is that when Henry Bolingbroke summoned that special session of Parliament, he addressed it in English, becoming the first English monarch to do so in that language....
-
Message 10
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Hi Shiv,
I was about to bring that up this morning. However, I understand that the first use of English at court was by Richard II. Could some one clarify this? Was this English, 'Olde Englishe' or Middle English or anything like modern English. I gather the older monarchs spoke as their mother language. not classical French, but a Norman version of that language.
Also, I understand Richard II enriched his Court with lots of matters of manners and etiquette. Did he for example, bring the use of properly cutlery (knives and forks) to the Royal Table?
He seems to have been a very interesting monarch in many ways.
Tas -
Message 11
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
He also suggested that his nobles - who often were snotty as well as snooty - should use a hanky. -
Message 12
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
It is unlikely that pure Anglo-Saxon, after over 3 centuries of Norman occupation, would have still been spoken anywhere but the remotest parts of the kingdom. It is also significant that an important member of Richard's court, being sent as an envoy to Italy and later appointed Clerk of the Works, was Geoffrey Chaucer who produced his literary masterpieces during Richard's reign.This seems to imply that the amalgam of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French with which we are familiar in "The Canterbury Tales", known now, but not then, as Middle English, had indeed become the lingua franca of England by the latter half of the 14th century.
Chaucer left court after the accession of Henry IV although Henry continued to pay him a pension (although Chaucer may not have received it in a timely fashion) until Chaucer died a year later. This may have been because Chaucer disapproved of the change of regime or, more straightforwardly, because Chaucer chose the moment of change at the top as a suitable time to retire.
It is interesting to note the relationship of Henry's son, Henry V, to Richard II. One of his first acts after becoming King in 1413 was to remove Richard's body from King's Langley in Hertfordshire where his father had placed it to its destined splendid double tomb in Westminster Abbey next to his wife, Anne of Bohemia, and near to where Henry was himself later to be buried 9 years later.
This was done with great ceremony awarding Richard the regal funeral he had been denied by Henry's father. There may have been several motives behind this. Obviously there must have been considerable guilt at the way Richard had been treated and particularly the manner of his demise. Also Henry was acutely conscious that his dynasty would be permanently tagged as usurpers because of the way his father had achieved the crown.
However there was also a much deeper philosophical problem in reconciling the divinity of kings and the idea that the monarch was God's instrument thus obliging obedience by the subject in the same way as he was obliged to be obedient to God, which had begun to take hold by this period, with getting rid of the monarch when he was no good at his job.
Henry was aware that if Richard could be overthrown so could he or any of his descendants, as his son was to find out. The deposition of Richard II opened the door to the Wars of the Roses a half-century later. The Tudors faced the same problem as the Lancastrians in being a usurping dynasty who nevertheless demanded unquestioning obedience from their subjects on account of divine appointment. -
Message 13
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Hi Tas
Regarding your question about royal corpses George V gave permission for the body of Henry VI to be exhumed in 1910 at St George's Chapel, Windsor (whither it had been removed from its initial resting place of Chertsey Abbey by Henry VII in 1485) to satisfy controversy about the manner of his death.
Examination of the corpse proved that Henry had been killed by a violent blow to the head. It also showed that Henry had lost all his teeth before death illustrating that tooth decay was a problem for the upper classes at the time because of their rich, sugary diet, whilst virtually non-existent amongst the lower classes, as shown by their remains, for whom sugar was unaffordable.
-
Message 14
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Hi Allan
That was not only a very good pointer on how Henry VI died but also summarized the War of the Roses. When you think the Wars so encapsulated and summarized, one begins at last to understand what was going on and what it was all about.
I wonder if they could use modern DNA techniques to ascertain if Queen Margaret's son the Duke of York, the one who was supposed to have been conceived with the aid of the Holy Ghost, was in fact Henry VI's son or whose son it was any way. That would solve a major puzzle of Medieval history.
Tas -
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
I think you mean Edward of Lancaster, not Richard, Duke of York, who led the opposition. Other than the Holy Ghost, one of the candidates for Edward's paternity was john Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, Henry VII's maternal great-uncle. If so Edward was executed alongside his half-brother, the 3rd Duke, after the Battle of Tewkesbury in 1471 in Edward IV's attempt to saw off the whole of the Lancastrian branch from the Tree of Plantagenet (which was also to include Edward's nominal father, Henry VI, in the Tower of London later that year - of course he overlooked the 14yo Henry Tudor).
-
Message 16
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
Does that mean the body of Edward of Lancaster is no longer any where?
I am sorry for mixing him up, for some strange reason, with the Duke of York, probably because in my mind so many sons of British Kings are Dukes of York.
Is it the historical consensus that he was not actually the son of Henry VI?
Tas -
Message 17
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 10th April 2011
According to Alison Weir's book, "Britain's Royal Families", Edward was buried in nearby Tewkesbury Abbey (which had to be re-consecrated after Edward IV's Yorkist forces slaughtered the Lancastrians seeking sanctuary there).
Fortunately, the Abbey survived the worst depredations of the Reformations and is currently still in use as a parish church so I assume he is still there although I can find no reference to him on the Abbey's website. -
Message 18
Posted by Patrick Wallace (U196685) on Tuesday, 12th April 2011
There could be a number of candidates for DNA testing - how about Edward IV (given the suggestion that he was illegitimate), or the Old Pretender (was he a warming-pan baby or not)?
-
Message 19
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 12th April 2011
Hi Patrick,
I agree we could learn a lot and many deep seated secrets of Royal and Noble families could be unearthed. I hope they will develop non-destructive testing methods in th future, so you can just put your probe on the surface of he tomb and get all the details. I think people rightly do not wish to disturb the dead unnecessarily. looks impossible today but juts consider MRI tests. Nothing goes inside your body yet they know what is happening inside your body or brain.
Tas -
Message 20
Posted by mark lewis (U14107993) on Thursday, 14th April 2011
It was not henry VII who arranged the removal of Henry VI's body to Windsor but Richard III, in 1484 I believe.
Mark -
Message 21
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 14th April 2011
The date given is 1485 but if it was before 22 August it would be Richard, not Henry. Richard was famously implicated, by Shakespeare and others, in Henry's death although he was only 19 at the time but he was certainly on the opposite side politically but the motivation may have been the same as Henry V's restoration of Richard II to his tomb in Westminster Abbey 72 years earlier - a mixture of guilty conscience (albeit a vicarious one) coupled with the central regal dilemma of reconciling divine monarchical appointment with Violent deposition. By 1485 Richard was beginning to comprehend, and perhaps sympathise with, his namesake and Henry's situation at the end of their reigns.
-
Message 22
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 15th April 2011
Apart from his success in the peasant revolt, was there any success for Richard II during his reign?
Henry VI at least seems to have endowed Colleges at Oxford.
Why did people endow Colleges in those days? Was it like building a Church? What kind of subjects were taught at Oxford and Cambridge? Did Sir Thomas More go to Oxford or Cambridge?
Tas -
Message 23
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Friday, 15th April 2011
Dear Tas
Depends what you mean by success. Richard did stop the rot in English Ireland and managed to bring about a peace of sorts with France.
Henry VI endowed King's College in Cambridge and Eton College, but not, as far as I'm aware any colleges in Oxford. Different people had different motivations for founding colleges. Some wanted their names to continue after death (two Cambridge colleges, Clare and Pembroke, were founded by wealthy widows whose family had died out in the male line); some wanted prayers to be said for them after their death; some colleges (Trinity Hall, Corpus and Gonville Hall in Cambridge, New College in Oxford) were founded after the Black Death to replenish the number of priests who had died; Exeter College, Oxford, was founded by the bishop of Exeter to help priests from his diocese.
There were four types of degrees in medieval universities; Liberal Arts; Medicine; Law; and Theology. Everyone studied the seven liberal arts to begin with. These were grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. Most students at Oxford and Cambridge failed to finish their first degree.
For those who did, they could go on and study another discipline. The most popular was law, and students could study canon law (Church law), civil law (Roman law) or a combination of both (ironically one coulsnt study the English common law at university, this was taught in the Inns of Court in London).
Theology was the 'Queen of Sciences' and a doctorate of theology was the most prestigious degree (and still is at both Oxford and Cambridge): it could take up to 15 years of study to obtain a doctorate of theology.
All the best
Andrew -
Message 24
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 15th April 2011
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for those comments and the explanation of the endowment of Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. When I was at the University of Toronto, they had just built a College and they called it 'New College.' The New College of Oxford sent them the sculptor of an Angle from the facade of the original New College and it was supposed to be from the 15th Century. It was very interesting that the NEW College of Oxford was several hundred years old.
I am surprised at the breadth of the curriculum of the Universities in those days.
You have said what you think about Richard II; what is your opinion of Henry IV? According to Shakespeare, his son Henry V was the ideal King.
Tas -
Message 25
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 16th April 2011
Did Sir Thomas More go to Oxford or Cambridge? Β
Thomas More entered Oxford University as a scholarship boy, most probably as one of the 'collegii pueri' ( 'college boys') nominated by Archbishop Morton for a place at Canterbury College. He started his studies at Oxford in 1492 and left after two years to begin his legal training in London. This was not unusual: young men often spent a year or two at the University without taking a degree before moving on to more serious study at an Inn of Court. By 1496 More was a law student at Lincoln's Inn. -
Message 26
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 16th April 2011
Thank you Perseverance. That is very interesting to know. I had thought he must have been to Oxford or Cambridge, since he appears to have been a great scholar.
I am pleased to know about his association with Lincoln's Inn, since my elder brother went to the same institution. I guess Sir Thomas would have been a 'barrister', if there were any barristers in the period of Henry VII, Henry VIII.
Tas -
Message 27
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 16th April 2011
The other possibility is that he went (on Morton's nomination) to St Mary's Hall, now Oriel College, on Turl Street. Canterbury College was absorbed by Christ Church following the Dissolution of the Monasteries.
-
Message 28
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 16th April 2011
Different people had different motivations for founding colleges.Β
A couple of further examples of different motivations, from the English speaking world's most senior university...
All Souls' College was established to commemorate the dead of the Hundred Years War.
The upstart stripling Corpus Christi, Oxford (most famous these days for having been caught cheating at University Challenge in 2009) was founded to promote the 'new learning' of the Renaissance, in contrast to medieval monastic learning.
-
Message 29
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 16th April 2011
Regarding the death of Richard II- the guide at the castle where he was kept was somewhat disconcerted to discover that the party that she was taking round c1964 was a bunch of History undergraduates on a day trip up from Bristol..
As an Australian non-historian just trying to earn her keep she became rather unsure of herself. But she did tell the local legend of Richard II having been killed with a red-hot poker being thrust down his throat, and his screams being heard in the town miles away.
Which leads to the question how did he scream with a red hot poker, and the subsequent production of Shakespeare's Richard II featuring a rising star of British Shakespearean theatre, who was one of the first Gays to come "out of the closet", re-enacted on stage the kind of vicious use of a red hot poker that might be thought an appropriate instrument of death for a gay man in a macho age and culture.
It would of course not produce trauma to the skull, or any very obvious external traces.
Cass -
Message 30
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
Hi Cass,
I think the red hot poker was reserved for Edward II, a well-known gay, and was introduced at the other end! I think his wife may have been involved.
Tas -
Message 31
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
Tas
You may well be right.. I did look to find whether my notes backed my memory with no success.. And as you say "the other end".
By the way as requested by fascinating I typed up some facts about Ancient Hindu Physics from thousands of years BC on the Civilization thread yesterday.
Cass -
Message 32
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
The unpleasantness with the poker is said to have happened at Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, Cass. Is that where you were visiting?
Does anyone know if there is any truth in the old story about Edward II's fate being sealed by a rogue comma? Isabella and Mortimer were supposed to have sent the following order concerning Edward:
Eduardum occidere nolite timere bonum est. (Do not kill Edward it is good to fear the deed.)
Stick a comma after 'timere' (which is supposed to have happened) and the sense changes dramatically:
Eduardum occidere nolite timere, bonum est. (Do not be afraid to kill Edward, the deed is good.)
No dreadful semi-colon jokes, please. -
Message 33
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
Temperance
Yes. The name Berkeley Castle finally swum up from the depths of my memory.
A reasonable coach-trip from Bristol taking in Peter Scott's Wildfowl Trust on the way.
Semi-colon jokes as in colonoscopies?
Cass -
Message 34
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
Semi-colon jokes as in colonoscopies?Β
That is funny!
Tas -
Message 35
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Sunday, 17th April 2011
Is it? -
Message 36
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 18th April 2011
Apologies folks-- It was in my notes as I thought, but it was Edward II.. Thanks to those who put me right.. I should have learned better than to get into this King's and Queen's stuff. I am just wondering why I got the two mixed up in my head. Edward II was not a child king but took the throne at 20- still perhaps with things yet to prove.
By the way colonoscopies can be an quite an interesting and novel experience. They gave me a TV screen to watch parts of myself that "others can not reach". It was probably on balance worth the compulsory drinking etc of the previous 12 hours.
Cass -
Message 37
Posted by PJP (U2236559) on Thursday, 21st April 2011
Hi Tas,
I'm mid-way through writing my dissertation on Richard II and I've already written three essays on his reign this year. On top of that I've led two three hour seminars on specific parts of his reign and have been taught all year under Dr Gwilym Dodd who has researched and written on Richard II and his reign extensively. Hopefully I should be able to contribute but I won't say too much as I've got the dissertation to crack on with!
Richard II came to the throne at a very young age, 10, and John of Gaunt was not popular enough to be trusted as a regent. As such, a series of continual councils ruled in his place, but Gaunt is thought to have still had a good deal of influence. Not only was Richard young, but his father, The Black Prince, and his grandfather, Edward III were great military leaders. The pressure on such a young king must have been tough!
In his early years he faced the Peasants Revolt of 1381 and seemed to handle the situation very well indeed but his distribution of patronage was deemed to be very poor at best and he had his favourites! Not quite as badly as Edward II but it led to great dissatisfaction amongst the Lords, particularly amongst his uncles, Gloucester and Warwick, two of the Lords Appellant you mention.
John of Gaunt, although initially not trusted, is in my view the glue that held the kingdom together through Richard's early years, and kept opposition (his brothers) at bay. Gaunt, as Duke of Lancaster, had great wealth and power, and could easily have claimed the throne at various points, but instead was very loyal towards kingship and the crown. As Richard grew older however, tensions between Gaunt and Richard grew and Gaunt left to Castile to pursue personal ambitions he had there.
When he left (cutting a long story short), his brothers and his son, ale along with others, defeated Richard's forces at the Battle of Radcot Bridge and effectively seized power. Richard had no choice. They could not depose him due to internal quarrels regarding who would take his place.
Richard was no fool however, and bided his time. He politically out manoeuvred the Lords Appellant and regained power. It is interesting that whilst the Commons initially supported the Lords Appellant, they soon lost interest which helped Richard.
Richard's 'tyranny' took place roughly ten years later which involved the exile of Bolingbroke. We can not be sure why he chose to exile Henry, initially it was just for 7 years, but when Gaunt, Henry's father, died, Richard extended his term to life. This part of Richard's reign is hotly debated by historians, some who argue his acts were just, others claim they were the work of a mad man!
Bolingbroke returned when Richard was campaigning in Ireland, hence why Richard landed in Wales to face him. He had little support by this point however, and fled himself to North Wales where Henry found him. He was likely starved, when his body was exhumed, Richard didn't appear to have any other obvious cause of death. We don't know if Bolingbroke was responsible, but revolt in Richard's name make it likely, if not proven.
If you have any other questions, do fire away! This is brief and skips over a lot of important backdrop like the Hundred Years War et al.
(If you want to read further, I recommend Saul "Richard II", Fletcher "Richard II: Manhood, Youth and Politics" and McHardy's essay at the beginning of Dodd's collection, "The Reign of Richard II". Tuck is also good.) -
Message 38
Posted by PJP (U2236559) on Thursday, 21st April 2011
I fear I may have got the Lords Arundel, Warwick and Gloucester mixed up at some point, my apologies!
-
Message 39
Posted by PJP (U2236559) on Thursday, 21st April 2011
Richard was placed in the Tower initially after his deposition but was moved at the end of 1399 when a group of nobles who had been in Richard's circle (and whom Henry had dispossessed in the same way that Richard had previously dispossessed him) threatened to murder Henry and restore Richard to the throne.
It was previously thought that Richard II had been killed by a blow to the head as Henry VI was to be killed in 1471 but the opening of his tomb in 1871 showed his skull unmarked adding to the theory that he was starved to death:
Richard II like King John, Edward II, Henry VI, Richard III, Charles I and James II fell victim to a mixture of personal flaws, arbitrary rule and too great a reliance on personal favourites. He also made one enemy too many. The stories of all these fallen monarchs illustrate the fact that England was more of an oligarchy than an absolute monarchy in which the sovereign was primus inter pares amongst a powerful nobility who would be prepared to cut down to size any over-mighty ruler.
What is interesting about Richard's overthrow is that Henry felt it necessary to call a special session of Parliament (then with only a century of continuous existence) to legitimise his accession to the throne and declare that Richard had "resigned" the crown. Although this was an obvious rubber-stamp it set an important precedent that was to be repeated in 1483 and 1689.
Henry had effectively given Parliament the power to decide who the legitimate occupant of the English throne should be or, as in 1649, the power to remove the monarchy altogether.Β I thought it worth also pointing out that some might disagree (particularly Fletcher) that it was Richard's perchance for favourites or his character flaws that led to his downfall.
Following Edward III's reign and with the success of his father to contend with, too much was expected from Richard too soon. Hence rebellion in 1386-1388.
And why do we expect that Richard should have left the 'traitors' (if one sees them as such), unpunished?
His reign can instead be viewed as a struggle against both his youth and the rebellion of the Lords. He not only had to content with them, but also the delicate situations domestically (Peasants Revolt) and abroad (Hundred Years War). -
Message 40
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Friday, 22nd April 2011
Hi PJP,
So nice to hear about your dissertation and the seminars about Richard II. He was so young when he died or was killed. It seems a little sad, even to Shakespeare:
I wasted time and now doth time waste me.Β
What I would like to have some light shed on is your own analysis of what kind of ruler was Richard, what were his relationships with his uncles Gaunt and Gloucester. Was he too young and immature when the Lords Appellant removed him from power. How did he manage to wiggle his way out of that situation?
Finally, was Henry of Bolingbroke a better king; was he not a usurper? It seems that the people seem to have accepted him. For that to happen, the predecessor king must have been a very poor monarch. Is that your take on it?
All the best wishes for your dissertation and good luck with the seminars.
Tas
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.